Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Baliwag Transit Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelee Alayon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Baliwag Transit Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelee Alayon
    20 views2 pages

    Original Title

    1. Baliwag Transit vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Baliwag Transit Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelee Alayon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1

    BALIWAG TRANSIT vs CA
    (G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989)
    Actual Damages

    FACTS:
    A complaint for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage was filed by private respondents, the
    Spouses Cailipan. The Complaint alleged that George, who was a paying passenger on a Baliwag bus on
    17 December 1984, suffered multiple serious physical injuries when he was thrown off said bus driven in a
    careless and negligent manner by the bus driver, Leonardo Cruz.

    Answer was filed by petitioner alleging that the cause of the injuries sustained by George was solely
    attributable to his own voluntary act in that, without warning and provocation, he suddenly stood up from his
    seat and headed for the door of the bus as if in a daze, opened it and jumped off while said bus was in
    motion, in spite of the protestations by the driver and without the knowledge of the conductor.

    Baliwag then filed a Third-Party Complaint against Fortune Insurance & Surety Company, Inc., on its third-
    party liability insurance in the amount of P50,000.00. In its Answer, Fortune Insurance claimed limited
    liability, the coverage being subject to a Schedule of Indemnities forming part of the insurance policy.

    Later the parties executed a “release of claims” which alleged that the injured party had already been paid
    damages for hospitalization and was later approved by the trial court. However, such was appealed by the
    parents of George because they claim that George was under the supervision of his parents and were the
    ones who paid the hospital bills and should’ve been the ones who signed the “release of claims.” The
    argument was countered by the petitioner stating that George was of legal age and may sign the document
    even if he was a student. The case was brought to the CA and it ruled that the “release of claims” cannot
    stand because it was George’s parents who paid for the hospital bills.

    ISSUE:

    WON the “release of claims” signed by George was valid

    RULING:
    Yes, because he is the party injured in the present case

    RATIO:
    We hold that since the suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, the Release of Claims executed by
    him, as the injured party, discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any and all liability is valid. He
    was then of legal age, a graduating student of Agricultural Engineering, and had the capacity to do acts
    with legal effect, thus, he could sue and be sued even without the assistance of his parents.

    Significantly, the contract of carriage was actually between George, as the paying passenger, and Baliwag,
    as the common carrier. As such carrier, Baliwag was bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human
    care and foresight could provide, and is liable for injuries to them through the negligence or wilful acts of its
    employees (Articles 1755 and 1759, Civil Code). Thus, George had the right to be safely brought to his
    destination and Baliwag had the correlative obligation to do so. Since a contract may be violated only by
    the parties thereto, as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties in interest, either
    as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to said contract.
    2

    There is no question regarding the genuineness and due execution of the Release of Claims. It is a duly
    notarized public document. It clearly stipulates that the consideration of P8,020.50 received by George was
    "to release and forever discharge Fortune Insurance and/or Baliwag from any and all liabilities now accrued
    or to accrue on account of any and all claims or causes of action

    You might also like